Talk:Templar Order
Precedent set by this page Starting up a page to discuss the lore elements of templars, mages, and blood mages has come up before, but at time it came up it was decided to keep all the information on page so it would be easier to find. I don't mind if we change that style, but we will need to be consistent. So, would people rather have separate pages discussing the lore elements of classes or continue with the current style. 19:56, January 28, 2011 (UTC) :I think this is going to depend on a few things. As you know, there's been discussions for splitting pages, but there was the problem with keeping the lore somewhere along with the split (which has not been resolved yet). :My opinion changes depending on whether templar is a specialization in Dragon Age II (I don't know if it was confirmed). If "templar" becomes a specialization in DAII, I'm in favor of merging this page with Templar, and specialization pages then become (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). If it is not a specialization for DAII, I'm in favor of the statu quo. :For other pages, since blood mage is a confirmed specialization, I'll echo my reply on the forum post: "Blood mage" has the lore information, while the specializations are (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). This is the same for "Mage". Unlike templars, there are no known unified group. :I think this is case-by-case, so I think it's okay if it isn't like the other pages. --'D.' (talk ·''' ) 22:57, January 28, 2011 (UTC) :: My opinion is, whether Templar is a specialization in DA2 or not this page should remain separately. Because '''this page is about the Templar order not the Templar specialization. It is clear that The Templar Order will play a major role in DA2. So we will have a lot of content to add to the Templar Order. If we merge these two pages together, that will end with a page that has all the lore info, story info and spec info in a single page and I think that will be a mess. We don't need to mix Templar specialization with Templar Order; they are clearly two different thing. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC) I am going to add the above discussion to here to track the issue easily. So please add your comments regarding the issue in that forum. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Knight-Divine and Knight-Vigilant Given the last interview.. do Knight-Vigilants exist at all? It seems to me that Knight-Divine=Knight-Vigilant? Asherinka (talk) 06:35, January 31, 2012 (UTC) :Probably. Or it is maybe another rank above Knight Vigilant. We just need to wait and see. DA3 will probably informs us more about the Order. :Since DG gives us lots of information about the past of the Order, maybe we should add them to the page too. Viktoria Landers (talk) 10:16, January 31, 2012 (UTC) ::Well.. we already did, actually :) At least, some of it. Asherinka (talk) 11:38, January 31, 2012 (UTC) :I've reworded what was changed in a previous edit since this is confusing. It needs to be clarified by David Gaider himself since we can't decide what is or not the differences (if there are any) between the two. --'D.' (talk · ) 12:41, January 31, 2012 (UTC) The article has been edited recently. Is there any source to back the assumption that the Knight-Vigilant has the authority over Knight-Divine(s)? Henio0 (talk) 18:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC) :Only the Trivia found in the Armor of the Divine Will page. Which however is unsourced so we're back in square one, I think. 19:26, February 24, 2013 (UTC) :I still haven't heard of anyone mentioning the Knight-Vigilant at the same time as the Knights-Divine to give us any sense of hierarchy. Moreover, the footnote was not modified and therefore suggests that Gaider's Thedas UK interview said this fact, which it does not (it only talks about Knights-Divine and says that they head the Order). At the very least, that needs to be fixed. My recommendation would be to roll back the change unless we know for sure. --R2sMuse (talk) 19:54, February 24, 2013 (UTC) Templar Hierarchy? So I've been wondering how the hierarchy works for Templars lately. I assumed it followed something like this: Knight-Vigilant Knight(s)-Divine Knight-Commander Knight-Captain(s) Knight-Lieutenant(s) Knight(s) Recruit(s) Does that sound right? EzzyD (talk) 15:40, May 16, 2012 (UTC) :We don't know for sure. We know that knight-commanders lead templars guarding each of the Circles. All the rest is dubious. It is unclear whether knight-vigilants and knight-divines are separate entities or one and the same, and we have never seen any of them, even in books or comics. Knight-divines are mentioned in an interview, but I have no idea where the information about the knight-vigilant comes from, to be honest. I guess we have to wait for DA3 to come out to learn more. Asherinka (talk) 11:26, May 17, 2012 (UTC) :: The Knight-Divine is briefly mentioned in the description for armor chestpiece "Armor of the Divine Will" obtainable from Ruck in the Ortan Thaig during A Paragon of Her Kind. Whether this is the 'head-guy' in charge of the entire Templar Order is unclear, true, which is why I'm making my guess at a possible hierarchy from what names we've been given so far. I look forward to seeing how these possible ranks (and individuals who hold them) may play a part in the upcoming story for DA3. EzzyD (talk) 19:31, May 18, 2012 (UTC) :::Oh, a nice find) I didn't know that. I think your guess is plausible enough, but we'll have to wait to find out for sure. Asherinka (talk) 19:31, May 19, 2012 (UTC) :::: Fair enough :D Seems like a long time to wait for details though.... EzzyD (talk) 19:34, May 19, 2012 (UTC) : Chiming in late, but seems to me that perhaps the confusion should just be reflected in the wiki? I think the current way it's described is more confusing. The text about the Knight-Vigilant at the beginning is taken directly from the Bioware blog (without citation...) that came out just before DA2 (dated Jan 2011), but the only source I know of for these Knights-Divine, plural, is that David Gaider interview. Perhaps there should be a section on Templar Hierarchy, that includes those various titles and just include a citation for each. To be honest, my feeling is that the Knight-Vigilant info is probably deprecated now. --R2sMuse (talk) 10:41, July 4, 2012 (UTC) :: It definitely should be clarified on the page (with citation and all), but we need someone to write this up. I think Knight Divine is actually incorrect, simply because I'll take the more official information against a non-formal interview. Until then, both should be included. 14:26, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::: Hmm, good point on official vs. unofficial, even if the unofficial is David Gaider himself. My guess is he changed it all when he wrote Asunder. LOL I can take a stab at writing something on this. --R2sMuse (talk) 18:58, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Actually, since it is David Gaider, it's taken as official information. It's just that it's informal, so I'm wondering how much it is that he remembers exactly the correct term (e.g., he wasn't sure about the number of origins or something in the same interview, which isn't published like GameInformer or whatever). However, it's conflicting information with more established canonical information. For example, in the past, there was a post on the legacy Dragon Age forums about Dalish having a settlement in Llomerryn (during the development of Dragon Age: Origins), but a dialogue between Isabela and Merrill states that the Dalish have not yet reached the city yet. The information got relocated in the trivia section, as we're unsure if it's still valid information (i.e., it got revised). 19:08, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Right. That interview is tricky since he also kept switching the name of the Lord Seeker as well, and acknowledged that he was forgetting things! :) Unfortunately, the only Knight-Vigilant ref I can find is that one blog entry; nothing in-game. So it may also be an outlier. I'll just try to include both for now and say something about how "other sources say..." --R2sMuse (talk) 19:39, July 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::Knight-Vigilant is mentioned on Armor of the Divine Will. 19:47, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Ah, that's right! From above discussion I was thinking it was a Knight-Divine reference. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:20, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::: I'm just that awesome :D EzzyD (talk) 20:27, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::: LOL :) --R2sMuse (talk) 20:46, July 4, 2012 (UTC) :::OK, take a gander at the new edit. Added "templar hierarchy" section, that just basically pulled out what was there already and put it all together, Knight-Vigilant and Knight-Divine included. What was left under "Templars in Thedas" was pretty much about recruitment, so I just renamed that section. The intro section I think I would be inclined to shorten and put some of the rest of that in its own section, perhaps on Duties of Templars, something like that. Most of it was originally drawn verbatim from that Bioware blog, but I think now it could be smoothed out more to flow with the rest. --R2sMuse (talk) 21:04, July 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Thank you for helping. :] The lead should indeed be rewritten if possible; I personally prefer that we have our own version rather than a copy/paste. It will definitely improve the flow of the article. 21:14, July 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::My pleasure! Just trying to finally do my part for such a well used resource! :) --R2sMuse (talk) 21:22, July 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::Also smoothed out the intro, adding "Duty of a templar" section. --R2sMuse (talk) 11:06, July 5, 2012 (UTC) Templar Recruits We all know that DA2 featured several Templar Recruits. And Alistair used to be one too. However since he didn't take his vows, he wasn't officially part of the Order -implying- that when someone becomes a full Templar takes the vows. Thus the Templar Recruit rank should not be part of the ranks but mentioned separately. 16:34, August 13, 2012 (UTC) :Sounds reasonable to me. In DA2 the recruits and Cullen all talk about the ritual taking of vows as well. Not sure where it should go though if it's not really a rank. Maybe in discussion of Templar Hierarchy...? It could mention something about the need to take vows. Interestingly, according to the Chantry Hierarchy codex, only those initiates who want to become templars get martial training, suggesting that some of the Chantry vow-takers become templars. However, templar vows clearly aren't the same as initiate vows, since templars are not bound to be chaste. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:20, August 13, 2012 (UTC) Timeline confusion between Nullification of the Nevarran Accord and final events in DA2 I noticed one portion (namely, The Mage-Templar War) of this page states that the separation, by order of the Lord Seeker, of the Templar Order and Seekers of Truth happened around the same time as the ending scenes of Dragon Age II. I do not believe this is the case. Here is my proof to back up this claim. If I remember correctly, it states in page 412, as the tyrant in question is dictating to his servant/scribe/whatever: "Signed this day of the fortieth year of the Dragon Age, Lord Seeker Lambert van Reeves". Unless I am mistaken with my source citing, I believe that the actual time at which the Kirkwall Chantry explodes (marking Anders as Dragon Age's most popular terrorist XD) takes place a year before the events of Asunder as mentioned elsewhere in the novel. I am still searching for the page to prove this but i am certain that it was either mentioned in passing or dialogue by a supporting character or other in the story. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though. Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 18:14, January 29, 2013 (UTC) :: Yes, you are correct that the Nevarran Accord was broken in 9:40, but the "end" of the game, i.e. the framing narrative with Varric and Cassandra, is also taking place in 9:40, 3 years after the Kirkwall explosion. Anders blew up the Chantry in 9:37 according to the fact that it was "Year Seven" of the game starting in 9:30. However, the scenes where Cassandra is interrogating Varric are supposed to be taking place a decade after the game started (the whole "rise to power" over a decade thing). Plus Varric also references the separation of the Templars, therefore suggesting that the framing story with Cassandra takes place in 9:40. :: Regarding Asunder, the date of the separation is clear, since Lambert's letter in the Epilogue is dated 9:40. However, the timing of the rest of the book's plot has a number of inconsistencies. If you're interested, I discussed some of the evidence once upon a time "here." In short, whenever they reference Kirkwall, they do say "a year ago," but when they talk about the Blight (9:30) and how long it has been since Rhys has seen Wynne, they talk about nine to ten years ago. Also, Pharamond's experiments have been going on five years, ordered by Divine Justinia who was only elected in 9:34. So all of this suggests (to me, anyway) that the main events of the book take place closer to 9:39. --R2sMuse (talk) 20:06, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ::: I think I understand now. Though I must admit that I got confused after having finished off Meredith and then reading about Lambert nullifies the Accord and all. Thanks for clearing it up :) Sapphirewhirlwind (talk) 18:29, February 1, 2013 (UTC) :::: My pleasure! I agree that the timing of everything isn't always obvious. You also make me realize that we should probably look at that ref in the page, tho, and make sure "end" of the game is perhaps more clear. --R2sMuse (talk) 19:08, February 1, 2013 (UTC) :::::Thank you! Zach Hontiveros Pagkalinawan (talk) 06:20, February 25, 2013 (UTC) Imperial templars On Imperial Chantry page the imperial templars are shortly described: Mages in the Tevinter Circle are controlled by high-ranking magisters instead of templars. "According to Fenris, templars are controlled by magisters and exist only to enforce the law. It does seem that the Imperial templars must act if a mage crosses the line and uses forbidden magics; they can even use the Right of Annulment. However, where that line is, is unclear since the use of blood magic seems to be common among the upper class, despite being officially forbidden. Since the restoration of the mageocracy, the templars are under the authority of the magisters and thereby the Circle of Magi. Lambert used to be an Imperial templar and claimed that, in fact, the Templar Order has no power there. The majority of Imperial templars lack the ability to counter magic. They are primarily soldiers." On the local page they are mentioned: "Fenris says the Imperial Chantries in the Tevinter Imperium have their own templars who step in when mages go too far. However, he also mentions that the Magisters wield considerable political influence over the Tevinter templars, although he does not give specifics of how powerful the Magisters' influence is." Caladrius' bodygaurds may be the imperial templars, but we can't confirm this. Do you think we have enough informations to create a separate page for Imperial Templar Order? FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 19:06, February 24, 2014 (UTC) : No, I don't think we have enough info. A separate paragraph would suffice for now. 22:27, February 24, 2014 (UTC) :: Agree.--R2sMuse (talk) 06:19, February 25, 2014 (UTC) :: Agree. Maybe there will be more info later with DA:I. --Kendira (talk) 10:51, March 21, 2014 (UTC) ::: Then all what remains is waiting for meeting the Imperial templars in Tevinter.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 17:12, March 21, 2014 (UTC) Red Templar Icon If it turns out the Red Templars have their own heraldry, we must remember to change the icon on the link under the see also section. - 15:55, November 4, 2014 (UTC) Knight-Vigilant vs. Knights-Divine Revisited This has been discussed above several times in the past with old information, so I wanted to call attention to some more recent information that has arisen about the Templar Order hierarchy. The Knight-Vigilant Trentwatch has resurfaced in DA:I, adding more credence to this person being the head of the Order. However, I just ran across some information on the Templar hierarchy from the Tabletop RPG that says: :THIRD TIER: (KNIGHT-VIGILANT) Commanding a whole nation’s templars, the Knight-Vigilant is at the top of their order’s hierarchy. The Knight-Vigilant has immense power over others in their order, able to field large forces of templars for various operations. The Knight-Vigilant answers to the Chantry’s Grand Cleric in the nation where they have their command. This suggests that the Knight-Vigilant is head only of a given country's templars, not of the entire Order. By the same token, this person reports to the Grand Cleric, not the Divine. In this way, it sounds like the Knight-Vigilant is in fact below the Knights-Divine who serve the Divine directly. Making all the evidence finally self consistent for once. I can add this to the article, but I wanted a reality check first, since I'm still not 100% on how Tabletop RPG lore fits in the source hierarchy. Thoughts? --R2sMuse (talk) 02:23, February 7, 2016 (UTC) The Knight-Vigilant is the leader of the entire order (http://blog.bioware.com/2011/01/27/on-templars-raiders-city-guards-and-the-coterie/). The Knights-Divines is more a division of the order with the duty to serve come a Divine's bodyguards, I think. --Virrac (talk) 06:20, February 7, 2016 (UTC) :Yes, but David Gaider himself also said that the "Knights-Divine" are the heads of the Templar Order. So the issue is murky at best.--R2sMuse (talk) 12:07, February 7, 2016 (UTC) Unless we get a clear confirmation in the game or from one of the developers, it should remain as it is as any conclusion we might come up with is speculation at best. henioo (da talk page) 08:57, February 7, 2016 (UTC) :Yes, probably. I suppose we should just ask once and for all.--R2sMuse (talk) 12:07, February 7, 2016 (UTC) Dev Comments on the Inquisition post trespasser " - 23:57, June 28, 2017 (UTC)